Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The Ophiuchus DIsk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA): Complete Size Distributions for the 100 Brightest Disks Across Multiplicity and SED Classes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper measures the complete size distribution of the 105 brightest Ophiuchus disks and finds it log-normal with median ~14 au, close binaries at ~5 au, and no size difference between embedded and Class II sources.

desk verdict A valuable flux-limited disk size catalog with careful cross-checks, but the two-resolution design and image-plane-only binary sizes need scrutiny before the headline log-normal distribution is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15789 v1 pith:3U63D6J6 submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Anuroop Dasgupta , Lucas A. Cieza , Camilo I. Gonzalez Ruilova , Trisha Bhowmik , Ms. Prachi Chavan , Grace Batalla-Falcon , Gregory J. Herczeg , Dary A. Ruiz-Rodriguez
show 11 more authors
Jonathan P. Williams Anibal Sierra Simon Casassus Octavio M. Guilera Sebastian Perez Santiago Orcajo P.H Nogueira Antonio S. Hales James M. Miley Fernando R. Rannou Alice Zurlo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords protoplanetarydisksdisksizedistributionALMAOphiuchusbinaryradialdriftSEDclassescontinuumemission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first complete, flux-limited size census of the brightest protoplanetary disks in the Ophiuchus star-forming region, using ALMA Band 8 observations at 7-21 au resolution to resolve all 105 disks. It finds that their half-width at half-maximum sizes follow a log-normal distribution with a median of about 14 au and a logarithmic spread of 0.46, establishing a demographic baseline for disk sizes. The census shows that disks in close binaries, with projected separation under 200 au, are much smaller with a median near 5 au, consistent with efficient radial drift of dust rather than tidal truncation alone. It also finds that young embedded disks and older Class II disks have statistically indistinguishable sizes, which the authors read as evidence that pressure bumps that trap millimeter grains are already common in the first million years.

What carries the argument

The central measurement object is the half-width at half-maximum (HWHM) of a two-dimensional Gaussian fitted to each disk's 410 GHz continuum image in the image plane with CASA imfit; for non-binary disks the radius enclosing 68% of the flux, $R_{68\%}$, is computed from radial profiles made with the Frank code as a cross-check. The two methods correlate with a best-fit slope of 0.78, and image-plane and visibility-plane Gaussian fits agree within 3%, so the HWHM carries the statistical comparisons. The survey design splits the flux-limited sample, with 45 brighter disks observed at 0.15 arcsec (21 au) resolution and 55 fainter disks at 0.05 arcsec (7 au), resolving every target and allowing HWHM values down to about 0.015 arcsec.

What would settle it

Compare the close-binary sizes with visibility-plane fits or forward-modeled synthetic observations of blended binaries: if the imfit half-width at half-maximum is systematically wrong for separations near or below the beam, the roughly 5 au binary median and the binary versus single comparison would not survive. A simpler check is to re-observe the 45 bright disks at 0.05 arcsec resolution and see whether their size distribution shifts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the continuum sizes of the 105 brightest Ophiuchus disks follow a log-normal distribution with median HWHM $\sim$14 au and $\sigma_{\log}=0.46$, spanning 1.7 to 177 au. Excluding close binaries raises the median to about 16 au and narrows the spread to $\sigma_{\log}=0.39$. The 17 disks in close binaries with separation under 200 au are distinctly smaller, with a median near 4.6 au, and they remain smaller at fixed millimeter flux, supporting models in which companions enhance radial drift. Embedded Class I and Flat Spectrum sources and Class II sources have indistinguishable size distributions whether or not binaries are included and whether sizes come from Gaussian fits or from $R_{68\%}$ profiles; the authors conclude that millimeter grains must be stopped by pressure bumps from very early times.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that the image-plane Gaussian half-width at half-maximum measures the true dust size for every source, with no cross-check for the blended components of close binaries, and that combining 0.15-arcsec and 0.05-arcsec observations does not bias the joint distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the log-normal size distribution is representative, surveys that resolve only the brightest disks overestimate typical disk sizes; the median planet-forming disk is compact, near 14 au.
  • Close binaries produce disks more than a factor of two smaller than single stars, so compact planetary architectures rather than Uranus or Neptune analogs should be the norm around close binaries.
  • The size-flux relation measured in Band 8 matches the previously established $R \propto L^{0.6}$ relation and extends it to fainter, smaller disks.
  • The lack of size evolution between embedded and Class II sources implies that pressure bumps or other dust-trapping substructures must be present in disks younger than about 1 Myr and at small radii.
  • The sample provides a benchmark for disk population synthesis models and for future comparisons with exoplanet demographics around binary systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The two-resolution design means the combined distribution could hide a resolution-dependent bias; re-observing the bright subsample at 0.05 arcsec and checking whether bright-end sizes shift would test this.
  • If the close-binary size deficit is driven by enhanced radial drift, gas disk sizes in the same binaries should be much larger than the dust sizes, a prediction testable with CO line observations of these binaries.
  • The log-normal form invites fitting the same distribution in other star-forming regions to see whether the 14 au median and $\sigma_{\log}=0.46$ are universal or region-specific.
  • Because the flux limit cuts at $M_{\rm dust} \gtrsim 2\,M_\oplus$, the full population including fainter disks likely extends to smaller sizes, and deeper observations would quantify the low-mass tail.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Dasgupta et al. present ALMA Band 8 (410 GHz) continuum observations of the 105 brightest ODISEA disks in Ophiuchus and measure their sizes using image-plane Gaussian fits (HWHM), with visibility-plane and Frank R68% cross-checks. The paper reports that the HWHM distribution is log-normal with a median of ~14 au and logarithmic standard deviation 0.46, that close binaries (projected separation < 200 au) have a median size of ~5 au, and that Class I/Flat Spectrum and Class II disks have statistically indistinguishable size distributions. The authors interpret the binary result as evidence for efficient radial drift and/or tidal truncation and the lack of SED-class evolution as evidence that pressure bumps are common at early disk stages.

Significance. If the size measurements are unbiased, this is a valuable demographic benchmark: the largest flux-limited, fully resolved sample of protoplanetary disk sizes in a single star-forming region, with a clean SED-class split and a quantitative binary comparison. The paper's measurement strategy has real strengths: sizes come from direct interferometric observables, image-plane and visibility-plane fits agree within 3%, the smallest source is explicitly checked against a point-source model, the Frank R68%-HWHM relation is quantified (slope 0.78), and the binary flux bias is addressed with a restricted sample. The main claims are falsifiable and should be reproducible from the data tables. The principal risk is that the two-resolution observational design and the image-plane-only binary fits are not independently validated, so the headline distribution and binary median need additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1 and Figure 1] The two-resolution design is confounded with source flux and size. The 45 objects brighter than 20 mJy in Band 6 were observed at 0.15" (21 au) and the 55 objects with 4-20 mJy at 0.05" (7 au), while the paper itself shows that disk size correlates with flux (Figure 1, bottom-left). No common-source cross-check between the two programs is reported: the image-plane versus visibility-plane comparison in Figure 3 is performed within each dataset, and the statement that some binary systems were observed at both resolutions refers to different components falling in different flux ranges, not to the same disk being measured at both resolutions. If the deconvolved HWHM depends on beam size, for example through resolved-out extended emission at 0.05" or blending at 0.15", the bright and faint subsamples could carry opposite systematic biases, and the combined log-normal fit in Table 2 (median 14.37 au, sigma 0.46) would not be a single unbiased distribution. Please provide an explicit validation of resolution homogeneity, for example source-injection or simulated observations of representative disk models at both resolutions, or at least split the sample by resolution and show that the fitted distributions are consistent.
  2. [Section 2.1.1] All close-binary sizes rely solely on image-plane imfit fits; the paper notes that visibility fitting is challenging for binaries but does not provide any dedicated validation, such as source injection or alternative fitting, for blended close binaries. This matters directly for the second central claim: the close-binary median of 4.6 au and the K-S comparison in Table 3 (88 vs 17, p = 1e-6) depend on these fits. The small observed binary radii could in principle be an artifact of beam deconvolution or component blending, particularly for faint secondaries observed at high resolution. Please add an injection-recovery test with the actual UV coverage, or show for at least a few close binaries that image-plane and visibility-plane fits are consistent.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The log-normal parameters are obtained by fitting histograms with scipy.optimize.curve_fit, but the manuscript does not specify the binning, the fitting domain, or whether the fit is to binned counts rather than to the unbinned sizes. Since the median and sigma in Table 2 are the headline results, a binned fit with arbitrary bin choice can bias both parameters. Please report an unbinned maximum-likelihood fit (or at least demonstrate that the quoted values are insensitive to binning) and state the exact fitting procedure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] The text says the median HWHM is 13 au, while Table 2 reports 14.37 +/- 1.38 au and the abstract says ~14 au; please reconcile these values.
  2. [Table 3] The first K-S row compares the whole sample (N=105) with the subsample excluding close binaries (N=88), but these samples are not independent because the second is contained in the first. The p-value of 0.58 therefore does not provide the stated support for similarity; the independent comparisons (88 vs 17 and 88 vs 13) are the informative ones.
  3. [Figure 3] The right panel reports a best-fit slope of 0.78 for R68% versus HWHM but gives no intercept, scatter, or goodness-of-fit; if this relation is intended as a conversion between size metrics, the full linear relation should be stated.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'Tale 2' in the Figure 1 caption, 'the the median' in Section 3.2, and 'Analogos' in Section 4.1; a careful proofread is needed.
  5. [Data availability] The paper should state explicitly whether the full version of Table 1, with all 105 sources, is available in machine-readable form, since the abbreviated printed table is insufficient to reproduce the size distribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the size measurements and distributions are direct ALMA observables, with all fits used descriptively rather than as inputs to the conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are measurements: HWHM values from Gaussian fits and R68% values from radial profiles are direct interferometric observables, calibrated against ALMA data and Gaia distances. The log-normal median and sigma are descriptive fits to the measured sizes, not fitted parameters that are then used to generate the sizes themselves. The binary-versus-single and Class I/Flat-versus-Class II comparisons are statistical tests applied to the same measured quantities, so no claim is derived from a parameter that was fit to the conclusion. The R68%-to-HWHM slope of 0.78 is an empirical conversion between two independent size metrics, and the image-plane versus visibility-plane agreement is a cross-check, not a self-referential definition. The pressure-bump interpretation is imported from external literature (Pinilla et al. 2012, Rosotti et al. 2019) and is not encoded in the measurement pipeline. Self-citations to prior ODISEA papers (Cieza et al. 2019, Williams et al. 2019) and the binary survey (Zurlo et al. 2020) supply the sample and companion identifications; they are data sources, not uniqueness theorems or ansatz smuggled in to force a result. The acknowledged limitation that imfit may underestimate sizes of very small sources is a stated observational caveat, not a circular step. The two-resolution design could introduce systematic resolution-dependent biases, but that is a correctness or calibration risk, not circularity: the measured sizes are not defined in terms of the conclusions they support. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external observables, and no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on standard interferometric calibration (ALMA, CASA, Gaia) and domain assumptions about what the 410 GHz continuum size traces and how SED class maps to age. No new physical entities are introduced. The log-normal parameters are descriptive fits to the data, not free inputs used to generate a prediction.

free parameters (3)
  • Log-normal median (whole sample) = 14.37 +/- 1.38 au (reported as ~14 au)
    Fitted to the observed HWHM distribution; it is the headline size measurement, not an ad hoc input. Descriptive fit, not a prediction.
  • Log-normal sigma (whole sample) = 0.46 +/- 0.02
    Fitted to the same distribution; describes scatter in disk sizes.
  • Log-normal median (close binaries) = 4.62 +/- 0.68 au (reported as ~5 au)
    Fitted separately for the close-binary disks; central to the binary-size conclusion.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption 410 GHz dust continuum size traces the radius out to which mm-sized grains are retained (the outermost pressure bump or dust trap), not the full gas disk.
    Invoked in Section 4.2 via Rosotti et al. (2019) to interpret the size distribution as constraining pressure bump locations. If false, the no-evolution result does not imply ubiquitous early pressure bumps.
  • domain assumption SED Class (Class I/Flat versus Class II) is a valid evolutionary-age sequence, with embedded sources younger than about 1 Myr and Class II sources a few Myr old.
    Used in Sections 3.3 and 4.2 to convert a size difference into a time-evolution statement. If Class I/Flat sources are not systematically younger, the comparison is not an evolutionary test.
  • domain assumption The flux-limited sample (M_dust greater than 2 M_earth) is representative enough to support general conclusions about young disks.
    The abstract's pressure-bump conclusion generalizes from the brightest half of ODISEA detections; the authors acknowledge the mass cutoff at the end of Section 4.2.
  • domain assumption Gaussian HWHM measured in the image plane is an unbiased size estimator for all sources, including close binaries where only image-plane fits are used.
    Adopted in Section 2.1.1; no cross-check is shown for blended binaries. This is the load-bearing premise behind the binary size distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Ophiuchus DIsk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA): Complete Size Distributions for the 100 Brightest Disks Across Multiplicity and SED Classes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3U63D6J6

@misc{pith2026250115789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Ophiuchus DIsk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA): Complete Size Distributions for the 100 Brightest Disks Across Multiplicity and SED Classes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3U63D6J6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15789}
}
abstract

The size of a protoplanetary disk is a fundamental property, yet most remain unresolved, even in nearby star-forming regions (d $\sim$ 140-200 pc). We present the complete continuum size distribution for the $105$ brightest protoplanetary disks (M$_{\text{dust}}$ $\gtrsim$ 2 M$_{\oplus}$) in the Ophiuchus cloud, obtained from ALMA Band 8 (410 GHz) observations at 0.05$^{\prime\prime}$ (7 au) to 0.15$^{\prime\prime}$ (21 au) resolution. This sample includes 54 Class II and 51 Class I and Flat Spectrum sources, providing a comprehensive distribution across evolutionary stages. We measure the Half Width at Half Maximum (HWHM) and the radius encircling $68\%$ of the flux ($R_{68\%}$) for most non-binary disks, yielding the largest flux-limited sample of resolved disks in any star-forming region. The distribution is log-normal with a median value of $\sim$14 au and a logarithmic standard deviation $\sigma_{\log} = 0.46$ (factor of 2.9 in linear scale). Disks in close binary systems ($<$ 200 au separation) have smaller radii, with median value of $\sim$5 au, indicating efficient radial drift as predicted by dust evolution models. The size distribution for young embedded objects (SED Class I and Flat Spectrum, age $\lesssim$ 1 Myr) is similar to that of Class II objects (age $\sim$ a few Myr), implying that pressure bumps must be common at early disk stages to prevent mm-sized particle migration at au scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15789 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Histograms of the size distribution of the ∼100 brightest systems in Ophiuchus (top panels) with Gaussian fits from scipy.optimize.curve fit function in Python. The figures show the size distributions including individual components of close binary (sep. < 200 au) systems (left panel) and excluding them (right panel). The middle-left panel corresponds to the disk size distribution of stars only in close binary syste… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Histograms of the size distribution of embedded targets (Class I and Flat Spectrum sources) and Class II objects (left panels). The top and middle panels correspond to Gaussian size measurements, including and excluding close binaries. The bottom panel shows the size distribution for the 80 disks with Frank Profiles (only available for non-binary disks). The corresponding cumulative distributions are shown on the ri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The left panel shows the disk radii fitted in the visibility plane (from uvmodelfit) vs. the disk radii measured in the image plane (from imfit). Both values agree within 3% across the full range. The right panel is the comparison between the R68% size estimates obtained from the Frank profiles and the HWHM values obtained from the Gaussian imfit values. The best fit lin (in red) has a slope of 0.78. Objects with in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The deprojected visibility profile of one of the smallest objects (ODISEA C4 099), with an estimated HWHM size of 21 mas and a R68% of 29 mas. The visibility profile falls with baseline and is therefore not consistent with a point source. The sources is ∼ 16 mJy in Ban…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of the the profile obtained from Frank to the Gaussian fit from imfit for two sources. For well-resolved sources, imfit reproduces well the intensity profile. For very small sources, imfit might underestimate their size and Frank sizes should be preferred …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left panel shows the cumulative flux distribution of Class II and embedded sources. The errors (shaded regions) correspond to the uncertainties in the Gaussian fits reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Geometry of dust rings in protoplanetary disks: the case of LkCa 15

    astro-ph.EP 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The 69 au dust ring in LkCa 15 is broad and thick at 0.88 mm and progressively narrower and thinner at 1.34 and 3.08 mm, implying a massive population of small grains alongside a more concentrated large-grain population.

  2. Confirmation of a ring structure in the disk around MP Mus (PDS 66) with ALMA Band 7 observations

    astro-ph.SR 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ALMA Band 7 observations confirm a dust ring at about 50 au in the disk around MP Mus and reveal a radially increasing millimeter spectral index from about 1.3 to 4.0.

  3. The Ophiuchus DIsk Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA): A Unified Evolutionary Sequence of Planet-Driven Substructures Explaining the Diversity of Disk Morphologies

    astro-ph.EP 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A single simulated disk with one Jupiter-mass planet evolves through the five gap, cavity, and ring morphologies seen in the Ophiuchus disk sample, supporting planet-driven shaping of protoplanetary disks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ̥LS -/u G >T:N P#/ @K# q A\ :H @ u q A\ :H @ u q A\ :H @ u q +W׼ӧOo> M

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    M., Wilner , D

    Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., Hughes , A. M., Qi , C., & Dullemond , C. P. 2009, , 700, 1502, 10.1088/0004-637X/700/2/1502

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/2/1502 2009

  5. [5]

    M., Wilner , D

    Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., Mac \' as , E., Carrasco-Gonz \'a lez , C., & Isella , A. 2018, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 517, Science with a Next Generation Very Large Array, ed. E. Murphy , 137

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    M., Wilner , D

    Andrews , S. M., Wilner , D. J., Zhu , Z., et al. 2016, , 820, L40, 10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/L40

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/820/2/l40 2016

  7. [7]

    P., van der Marel , N., et al

    Ansdell , M., Williams , J. P., van der Marel , N., et al. 2016, , 828, 46, 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/46

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/828/1/46 2016

  8. [8]

    Artymowicz , P., & Lubow , S. H. 1994, , 421, 651, 10.1086/173679

    doi:10.1086/173679 1994

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    A., Carpenter , J

    Barenfeld , S. A., Carpenter , J. M., Ricci , L., & Isella , A. 2016, , 827, 142, 10.3847/0004-637X/827/2/142

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Beckwith , S. V. W., Sargent , A. I., Chini , R. S., & Guesten , R. 1990, , 99, 924, 10.1086/115385

    1990 doi

  3. [11]

    P., Johansen , A., et al

    Brauer , F., Dullemond , C. P., Johansen , A., et al. 2007, , 469, 1169, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066865

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    J., Christiansen , J

    Burke , C. J., Christiansen , J. L., Mullally , F., et al. 2015, , 809, 8, 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/8

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    CASA Team , Bean , B., Bhatnagar , S., et al. 2022, , 134, 114501, 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    A., Ru \' z-Rodr \' guez , D., Hales , A., et al

    Cieza , L. A., Ru \' z-Rodr \' guez , D., Hales , A., et al. 2019, , 482, 698, 10.1093/mnras/sty2653

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    A., Gonz \'a lez-Ruilova , C., Hales , A

    Cieza , L. A., Gonz \'a lez-Ruilova , C., Hales , A. S., et al. 2021, , 501, 2934, 10.1093/mnras/staa3787

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    G., Harris , R

    Cox , E. G., Harris , R. J., Looney , L. W., et al. 2017, , 851, 83, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa97e2

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    1996, , 309, 493

    Dutrey , A., Guilloteau , S., Duvert , G., et al. 1996, , 309, 493

    1996

  10. [18]

    L., & Luhman , K

    Esplin , T. L., & Luhman , K. L. 2020, VizieR Online Data Catalog: Membership in Ophiuchus & Upper Scorpius complex (Esplin+, 2020) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/AJ/159/282. Originally published in: 2020AJ....159..282E, 10.26093/cds/vizier.51590282

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    M., J rgensen , J

    Evans , Neal J., I., Dunham , M. M., J rgensen , J. K., et al. 2009, , 181, 321, 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/321

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 46 open clusters GaiaDR2 HR diagrams (Gaia Collaboration, 2018) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/616/A10

    Gaia Collaboration , Babusiaux , C., van Leeuwen , F., et al. 2018, VizieR Online Data Catalog: 46 open clusters GaiaDR2 HR diagrams (Gaia Collaboration, 2018) , VizieR On-line Data Catalog: J/A+A/616/A10. Originally published in: 2018A&A...616A..10G, 10.26093/cds/vizier.36160010

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Hales , A

    Gonz \'a lez-Ruilova , C., Cieza , L. A., Hales , A. S., et al. 2020, , 902, L33, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbcce

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    2020, , 895, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab70ba

    Hendler , N., Pascucci , I., Pinilla , P., et al. 2020, , 895, 126, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab70ba

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    M., & Sargent , A

    Isella , A., Carpenter , J. M., & Sargent , A. I. 2009, , 701, 260, 10.1088/0004-637X/701/1/260

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    2020, in Five Years After HL Tau: A New Era in Planet Formation (HLTAU2020), 15, 10.5281/zenodo.4300077

    Jennings , J. 2020, in Five Years After HL Tau: A New Era in Planet Formation (HLTAU2020), 15, 10.5281/zenodo.4300077

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Long , F., Pinilla , P., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2018, , 869, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae8e1

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    F., Mordasini , C., Testi , L., et al

    Manara , C. F., Mordasini , C., Testi , L., et al. 2019, , 631, L2, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936488

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2012, , 541, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117350

    Mordasini , C., Alibert , Y., Benz , W., Klahr , H., & Henning , T. 2012, , 541, A97, 10.1051/0004-6361/201117350

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    J., J rgensen , J

    Ohashi , N., Tobin , J. J., J rgensen , J. K., et al. 2023, , 951, 8, 10.3847/1538-4357/acd384

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Papaloizou , J., & Pringle , J. E. 1977, , 181, 441, 10.1093/mnras/181.3.441

    1977 doi

  22. [30]

    Papaloizou , J. C. B., Alberts , F., Pringle , J. E., & Savonije , G. J. 1997, , 284, 821, 10.1093/mnras/284.4.821

    1997 doi

  23. [31]

    J., et al

    Pascucci , I., Testi , L., Herczeg , G. J., et al. 2016, , 831, 125, 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/125

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    T., Gaudi , B

    Penny , M. T., Gaudi , B. S., Kerins , E., et al. 2019, , 241, 3, 10.3847/1538-4365/aafb69

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    2012, , 538, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118204

    Pinilla , P., Birnstiel , T., Ricci , L., et al. 2012, , 538, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118204

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    2020, , 635, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937003

    Pinilla , P., Pascucci , I., & Marino , S. 2020, , 635, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201937003

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    2014, , 795, 42, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/42

    Poleski , R., Skowron , J., Udalski , A., et al. 2014, , 795, 42, 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/42

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    P., Gulera , O

    Ronco , M. P., Gulera , O. M., & de El \' a , G. C. 2017, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, Vol. 49, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 76--76

    2017

  29. [37]

    P., Tazzari , M., Booth , R

    Rosotti , G. P., Tazzari , M., Booth , R. A., et al. 2019, , 486, 4829, 10.1093/mnras/stz1190

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    P., Lodato , G., et al

    Tabone , B., Rosotti , G. P., Lodato , G., et al. 2022, , 512, L74, 10.1093/mnrasl/slab124

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    2021, , 506, 5117, 10.1093/mnras/stab1912

    Tazzari , M., Testi , L., Natta , A., et al. 2021, , 506, 5117, 10.1093/mnras/stab1912

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    2023, , 954, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7d1

    Trapman , L., Rosotti , G., Zhang , K., & Tabone , B. 2023, , 954, 41, 10.3847/1538-4357/ace7d1

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Birnstiel , T., & Wilner , D

    Tripathi , A., Andrews , S. M., Birnstiel , T., & Wilner , D. J. 2017, , 845, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7c62

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    2005, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Williams , J., & Andrews , S. 2005, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 207, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 39.01

    2005

  35. [43]

    P., Cieza , L., Hales , A., et al

    Williams , J. P., Cieza , L., Hales , A., et al. 2019, , 875, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab1338

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, , 965, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad323b

    Wu , Y., Liu , S.-F., Jiang , H., & Nayakshin , S. 2024, , 965, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad323b

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    P., Clarke , C

    Zagaria , F., Rosotti , G. P., Clarke , C. J., & Tabone , B. 2022, , 514, 1088, 10.1093/mnras/stac1461

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    P., & Lodato , G

    Zagaria , F., Rosotti , G. P., & Lodato , G. 2021 a , , 504, 2235, 10.1093/mnras/stab985

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    2021 b , , 507, 2531, 10.1093/mnras/stab2024

    ---. 2021 b , , 507, 2531, 10.1093/mnras/stab2024

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    2018, , 869, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    Zhang , S., Zhu , Z., Huang , J., et al. 2018, , 869, L47, 10.3847/2041-8213/aaf744

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    A., P \'e rez , S., et al

    Zurlo , A., Cieza , L. A., P \'e rez , S., et al. 2020, , 496, 5089, 10.1093/mnras/staa1886

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    A., Ansdell , M., et al

    Zurlo , A., Cieza , L. A., Ansdell , M., et al. 2021, , 501, 2305, 10.1093/mnras/staa3674

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.